Coreeece

Ok - but just to be fair, we have to recognize that it was because of regulations that minimum wage workers are getting screwed - not all regulation is good regulation. Unemployment insurance is supposed to help workers, but in this instance it only helps the middle class at the expense of the lower class. Also, 35+ hours basically make you a full-time employee and some state regulations require businesses to provide certain benefits to full-time workers - so once again, more people working less hours so that businesses can avoid the added cost of that particular regulation. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...and the first step to that would be for employers to actually give minimum wage workers 40 hours a week - which they are not. In Michigan, there is a financial incentive for businesses to limit the hours of minimum wage employees. If their employees make under $2800 per quarter, they will never qualify for unemployment insurance, thus ultimately reducing the amount the company will have to pay into unemployment - this works out to about 28 hours at 8.25/hr per employee. The way around this would be to find a second job - but that's not good for businesses - so in order to control this, they give their employees sporadic schedules. One day they may be working late night, the next day they may be working in the morning, then one day they may only come in for 3 hours in the afternoon. All this just makes it that much harder to work with other employers when looking for a second job. So to recap: People who need the most hours, get the least. Finding a second job is hardest on those that need it the most. ...and all this promotes deceitful unemployment figures. Politicians will say that we have the lowest unemployment in years, when in reality all we have is more people working less hours. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

This is sorta, kinda like the flip-side of Dunning Kruger - instead of overestimating your ability, you're underestimating it and then assuming things can work out just as "easily" for everyone else. Interestingly enough, this underestimation of yourself is also reflected in the following graph illustrating productivity vs compensation: https://spfaust.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/worker-productivity-annual-wage-compensation.png It shows that despite skyrocketing productivity and profit, you are still severely underpaid. All your money is being sucked up by corporate CEOs and the top 1% - most of which never goes back into the economy - that is a problem. Unfortunately this is just a byproduct of globalisation, and there isn't much we can do about it until the rest of the world stops whoring themselves out to U.S corporations. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Good post overall, but with regard to the part above - though I get your point - I think you'd have a have a hard time convincing liberals and college students that Bernie would cause more damage than Trump should it come down to those two. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It makes you paradoxical at best and hypocritical at worst and does little for your cause. How so? Please explain. you indicated that a given worst-case scenario was offensive to you yet posted your own worst case scenarios as justification for your stance on abortion. That is paradox. Hypocrisy comes when you actually act on it rather than just words.. No I already explained that it was the "worst case scenario" itself that I found more offensive, not actually posting or discussing it. I was answering Wendy's question about whether or not I saw a difference between earlier abortion and late term abortion. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It makes you paradoxical at best and hypocritical at worst and does little for your cause. How so? Please explain. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

When i read your previous posts just a few back -"I know women that have had 1, 2, 3....etc", I see you as being just as guilty at posting the worst case scenarios for your argument as well. Ya, so what? And that certainly makes you look 'offensive' as well. What's offensive is a woman having 3 late term abortions due to her debauchery, not the actually posting or discussion of such a "worst case" scenario. Just because I'm not some fanatical nutcase that protests and writes nasty letters to congress doesn't mean that I don't support birth control. Contraception is already there for those that want it - especially since the medicaid expansion. We could certainly make it more accessible, but it's there nonetheless. Even if we gave women vouchers to buy OTC birth control at the local party store, many still wouldn't take advantage of it. You can lead a horse to water and all that. At some point it always comes down to sex education and personal responsibility - have you sent letters to congress about that? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Pro-lifers tend to start their arguments with the worst case scenario - like a 25 year old promiscuous lush whose irresponsibility and mindless procrastination have led to a late-term abortion. Pro-choicers tend to start their argument with less offensive scenarios - like the responsible 40+ year old whose birth control failed and promptly has an abortion due to the increased health risks and/or because she's already did her time mothering a litter. I find the former scenario much more offensive. I suppose it's the culpability that makes it more offensive - like a car accident caused by a drunk driver vs. an epileptic. Do they? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Yeah, like funding Planned Parenthood. I was going to mention that in my post, but didn't want to be too long winded. Personally, I think women should be able to walk in anywhere and get the birth control they need, whether it's some hospital, private facility, after hours clinic, PP wherever. They should even be able to pick up the phone and have the doc call in a script to CVS without a doctors visit. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, I get it - I do. My posting history on this subject has had more to do with ridiculing abortion and encouraging women to give birth, rather than forcing them to. I'll admit that my last comment in post 979 was more or less hyperbolic bullshit - ridiculous, impractical - The thought popped into my head and I just threw it out there. Overall, I believe we need to do everything we can to provide women with access to birth control and help prevent pregnancy. If they get pregnant we do everything we can to encourage and support them - and - their child. What I find deeply disturbing is that abortion today almost seems to be encouraged while those against it are vilified. If you're not ok with abortion then why not ridicule it like everything else you disagree with in these forums? You can be pro-choice and still have an influential voice that encourages life. That's how society self governs - through public opinion. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, right - women are off destroying their own offspring to preserve their lifestyle and increase their chances of survival, and I'm the neanderthal - go figure. Infanticide goes all the way back to neolithic times - and in some religious societies, women were considered a burden to society and a threat to survival, so they often killed female infants. Today however, we're apparently more inclusive and less misogynistic when it comes to the selfish destruction of our offspring. Of course, traditional infanticide is illegal, but we have a found a loophole allowing us administer a lethal injection into the offspring and then rip it from the womb just weeks before it's born - because, you know - that's more humanistic. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

That's fine, so you think that a woman should be able to use abortion as birth control. She can have 5 terminated pregnancies, three of which were late term - and that's ok with you - Fine. I've known fathers that lost their parental rights over far more trivial issues. If you're an irresponsible parent, then the state has the right to take your kids from you. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, just ignore the context as usual - why address the more challenging parts of the post, eh? Why shouldn't privacy/abortions rights be treated as other rights? If you abuse it, you lose it. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

If Bernie gets elected, it's because republicans are too fucking naive to nominate a winner. I know plenty of right-leaning college students that absolutely despise Hillary, but are equally fed up with all the conservative bullshit. They see Uncle Bernie as the only honest candidate. They know his positions are extreme, but they also know that Bernie isn't a dictator that controls congress. At the end of the day, they believe Bernie is honestly for the people and doesn't have some wacked-out liberal position on gun control. At his very worst, they can trust him to do the least damage, overall. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Wow, a war that promotes life rather than destroying it - A baby count rather than a body count - who'da thunk it? It's interesting how the article puts such an emphasis on poverty, as if poor women aren't worthy of childbearing. It's like they're trying to remind fiscals that they'll have to take care of these babies for the next 18 years. Personally, I'd like to see evidence that these women sought out birth control/abortion services for these unwanted pregnancies - and then actually being denied those services. Perhaps in 20 years we could ask these unwanted children how they feel about the state looking out for their best interest and protecting them from their sick, irresponsible mothers who would've otherwise had them killed. We deny the rights to U.S citizens everyday based on bad behavior and irresponsible decisions - why should abortion be any different? I know women who've had 1, 2 , 3, 4, no, 5 abortions. FIVE. Five abortions - three of which were late term. At what point do we have the right to say that you can't fucking do this anymore! Part of me feels that some women, especially repeat offenders should be forced to go to term and then have their baby placed in child protective services. . .I'm tired of all your bullshit. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I don't think people vilify it as much as they mock or ridicule it - take for example the "eyes on the road" thread in the bonfire where the guy killed himself in a jerking and driving accident. It's natural to laugh and ridicule this type of sexual behavior - it has nothing to do with anybody's religious views or how one was raised. It takes people like you to go around the internet trying to convince people that there is nothing funny or wrong about it - "it's natural, it's just like going to the bathroom." Ya right, tell that to Paul Reuben. If he had urinated in public, we'd still be watching reruns of pee wee's playhouse. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

What a shitty comparison, you should be ashamed of yourself. A lot of things are natural, but not all are necessary. It won't kill you to stop masturbating, but I can't say the same for excretory failure. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, so in this instance it's alright to object to certain types of behavior with which you don't agree. So to recap: Objection to infidelity - socially acceptable Objecting to female infidelity while giving a pass to male infidelity - bigoted Objection to homosexuality - (should be) socially acceptable Showing preference to cajun homosexuals over creole homosexuals - bigoted, possibly racist Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, maybe with same sex marriage - but with homosexuality, it will always be more on par with adultery and masturbation - maybe even then some. At least with adultery and masturbation there seems to be elements of guilt and embarrassment respectively - people tend to be ashamed, especially when caught. They don't boast about getting divorced, nor do they have masturbation pride parades. People have all kinds of negative opinions/judgements about various sexual practices - especially those that tend to be more embarrassing and unusual in nature. Why should homosexuality be treated any differently? Should people be called intolerant bigots and lose their livlihood should they voice their opinion against unfaithful husbands, or promiscuous wives? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Homosexuality will become just another commonplace sin like all the others. Maybe in the future evangelicals won't be shouted down as bigoted homophobes, lose their jobs, get sued and/or thrown in jail when they express their objection to homosexuality - kind of like it is now. People don't lose their livelihood for expressing their opinion of other sinful behavior that "they've always known" - like adultery or masturbation. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Excellent, markup code - thanks! Here's some help with Morse code if you ever find yourself in another type of primitive situation. http://163x549.webs.com/International%20Morse%20Code.jpg Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Just a quick clarification. The Prodad link above is for Mercalli V2, but if you want to batch process you'll need Mercalli V3 or V4. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Nobody was complaining until Quade came in with his typical condescending remarks and started barking at the forum for not using an outdated platform correctly - who wants to pay for that? No, that's not how it works... You don't treat people like garbage just because you don't like the way they use your shitty platform, and then expect them to become paying customers. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...or they can just capitalize on modern technology and update the UX like a normal business - maybe even upgrade the moderators while they're at it. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

And we will continue to make fun of the only fucking website left on internet that can't master the trivialities of recognizing a web address. ...and the mobile "capabilities" are a PITA, wtf? lol dude, the irony meter just shit itself. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour